Judge criticised parents for "overindulging" their teen
Discussion
A judge has criticised parents for “overindulging” their teenage son who killed two friends while driving at double the speed limit.
It emerged that Hammett-George had been caught speeding just a week after passing his test in February 2022, but his father Dewi George took the blame to avoid him getting points on his licence.
Full story https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/car-cr...
It emerged that Hammett-George had been caught speeding just a week after passing his test in February 2022, but his father Dewi George took the blame to avoid him getting points on his licence.
Full story https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/car-cr...
"The defendant was not wearing a seatbelt, but had it buckled underneath him to stop the warning sounding when the incident took place." Because that's what all the cool kids are doing nowadays...
Six years inside doesn't sound like much for deliberately driving like an idiot and killing two people. But it's within the sentencing guidelines, obviously.
Curious as to how he could plead guilty to one count of causing death by dangerous driving and another of causing death by careless driving. Why the different offences for the same incident?
Six years inside doesn't sound like much for deliberately driving like an idiot and killing two people. But it's within the sentencing guidelines, obviously.
Curious as to how he could plead guilty to one count of causing death by dangerous driving and another of causing death by careless driving. Why the different offences for the same incident?
C69 said:
"The defendant was not wearing a seatbelt, but had it buckled underneath him to stop the warning sounding when the incident took place." Because that's what all the cool kids are doing nowadays...
Six years inside doesn't sound like much for deliberately driving like an idiot and killing two people. But it's within the sentencing guidelines, obviously.
Curious as to how he could plead guilty to one count of causing death by dangerous driving and another of causing death by careless driving. Why the different offences for the same incident?
I think they've reported that wrong. He initially pleaded not guilty to all charges, even though it was a horrendous piece of driving. He changed his plea to guilty for two counts of death by dangerous and one of serious injury by dangerous.Six years inside doesn't sound like much for deliberately driving like an idiot and killing two people. But it's within the sentencing guidelines, obviously.
Curious as to how he could plead guilty to one count of causing death by dangerous driving and another of causing death by careless driving. Why the different offences for the same incident?
So, robbed two of living their lives and changed another life for the foreseeable future. IMO 6 years is not enough. Sentences should run consecutively not concurrently.
nordboy said:
I think they've reported that wrong. He initially pleaded not guilty to all charges, even though it was a horrendous piece of driving. He changed his plea to guilty for two counts of death by dangerous and one of serious injury by dangerous.
So, robbed two of living their lives and changed another life for the foreseeable future. IMO 6 years is not enough. Sentences should run consecutively not concurrently.
How much time would be enough for someone who drove like that, but by sheer luck, didn't hurt anyone?So, robbed two of living their lives and changed another life for the foreseeable future. IMO 6 years is not enough. Sentences should run consecutively not concurrently.
OutInTheShed said:
nordboy said:
I think they've reported that wrong. He initially pleaded not guilty to all charges, even though it was a horrendous piece of driving. He changed his plea to guilty for two counts of death by dangerous and one of serious injury by dangerous.
So, robbed two of living their lives and changed another life for the foreseeable future. IMO 6 years is not enough. Sentences should run consecutively not concurrently.
How much time would be enough for someone who drove like that, but by sheer luck, didn't hurt anyone?So, robbed two of living their lives and changed another life for the foreseeable future. IMO 6 years is not enough. Sentences should run consecutively not concurrently.
OutInTheShed said:
nordboy said:
I think they've reported that wrong. He initially pleaded not guilty to all charges, even though it was a horrendous piece of driving. He changed his plea to guilty for two counts of death by dangerous and one of serious injury by dangerous.
So, robbed two of living their lives and changed another life for the foreseeable future. IMO 6 years is not enough. Sentences should run consecutively not concurrently.
How much time would be enough for someone who drove like that, but by sheer luck, didn't hurt anyone?So, robbed two of living their lives and changed another life for the foreseeable future. IMO 6 years is not enough. Sentences should run consecutively not concurrently.
Sentence should be a minimum of 10 years and no chance of early release and a further ban for at least 6 years .
I hope his father got jail time for accepting the points for his d
head son.
We can all be daft when just passed the driving test (I know I was sometimes ) but we did not drive like the young ones seem to do nowadays that is imo dangerously as they seem to get given cars just to use without getting any experience, and appear fearless .I was limited to an 8 year old MK1 ford escort 1100 (paid £350 for it )when I passed many moons ago.
I hope his father got jail time for accepting the points for his d
head son.We can all be daft when just passed the driving test (I know I was sometimes ) but we did not drive like the young ones seem to do nowadays that is imo dangerously as they seem to get given cars just to use without getting any experience, and appear fearless .I was limited to an 8 year old MK1 ford escort 1100 (paid £350 for it )when I passed many moons ago.
Edited by The big yin on Friday 29th March 21:17
stanlow45 said:
Rather excessive imo.
Stupid teen, check. Couple of late moron friends, check. But why does the law value their lives? Surely the world is better off without any of them? Life is sometimes overrated.
Ymmv, of course.
It would definitely be better off without posts like that. Stupid teen, check. Couple of late moron friends, check. But why does the law value their lives? Surely the world is better off without any of them? Life is sometimes overrated.
Ymmv, of course.
We can all be daft when just passed the driving test (I know I was sometimes ) but we did not drive like the young ones seem to do nowadays that is imo dangerously as they seem to get given cars just to use without getting any experience, and appear fearless .I was limited to an 8 year old MK1 ford escort 1100 (paid £350 for it )when I passed many moons ago.
[/quote]
Not really. The only real difference is that cars are much safer. If the driver had died in that crash, then the story wouldnt be posted here. 78mph rollover crash in an escort 1100 would be fatal.
Also, cars are now much quicker, and less involving to drive, so people drive them a lot quicker without "feeling" like theyre going quickly. Would an old escort 1100 even do 78? If you tried to show off to your mates in that, youd be flat out in it for quite a long time before you got to illegal/dangerous speeds. In a modern, presumably sporty alfa, he probably only had his foot down trying to show off for a few moments before it all went wrong.
Obviously thats no defnece for driving like a moron. Shame the wrong vehicle occupants paid the price for his wrecklessness
Edited by The big yin on Friday 29th March 21:17
[/quote]
Not really. The only real difference is that cars are much safer. If the driver had died in that crash, then the story wouldnt be posted here. 78mph rollover crash in an escort 1100 would be fatal.
Also, cars are now much quicker, and less involving to drive, so people drive them a lot quicker without "feeling" like theyre going quickly. Would an old escort 1100 even do 78? If you tried to show off to your mates in that, youd be flat out in it for quite a long time before you got to illegal/dangerous speeds. In a modern, presumably sporty alfa, he probably only had his foot down trying to show off for a few moments before it all went wrong.
Obviously thats no defnece for driving like a moron. Shame the wrong vehicle occupants paid the price for his wrecklessness
stanlow45 said:
Rather excessive imo.
Stupid teen, check. Couple of late moron friends, check. But why does the law value their lives? Surely the world is better off without any of them? Life is sometimes overrated.
Ymmv, of course.
I presume you dont have kids, and had no friends when you were growing up. Did those teenagers deserve to die, just because they got in that car? If d1ckhead driver only killed himself, nobody would really care, but his dangerous actions killed two innocent people.Stupid teen, check. Couple of late moron friends, check. But why does the law value their lives? Surely the world is better off without any of them? Life is sometimes overrated.
Ymmv, of course.
Stanlow45-shame on you. What a horrible attitude. You know nothing about those kids. Neither do I but I know they did not deserve to die because they got a lift from an idiot. You need to take a long hard look at yourself, about your attitude to others and your value of life and then do the decent thing….. it’d be no loss.
These sort of stories are heartbreaking because a moment of stupidity has ruined so many people's lives.
Most of us probably drove like knobs at 17, and I suppose why insurance is so unviable these days for youngsters. This family must have had a few quid if he had a car with a personal plate and no black box insurance - hence the judge's comments in part I suppose.
Most of us probably drove like knobs at 17, and I suppose why insurance is so unviable these days for youngsters. This family must have had a few quid if he had a car with a personal plate and no black box insurance - hence the judge's comments in part I suppose.
Hub said:
These sort of stories are heartbreaking because a moment of stupidity has ruined so many people's lives.
Most of us probably drove like knobs at 17, and I suppose why insurance is so unviable these days for youngsters. This family must have had a few quid if he had a car with a personal plate and no black box insurance - hence the judge's comments in part I suppose.
Yes im sure we all drove like knobs, i know i did, im mid 50 now, but cars were much slower, and you knew a bad crash would kill you, so there was some thought.Most of us probably drove like knobs at 17, and I suppose why insurance is so unviable these days for youngsters. This family must have had a few quid if he had a car with a personal plate and no black box insurance - hence the judge's comments in part I suppose.
But we did it for the rush, a consequence of safer cars is that you have to go faster/do madder things to get the thrill now.
I often think that i was the lucky generation re cars, lots of fun in fairly slow cars, but you knew it you stacked it , it would hurt or worse.
Not sure those are a consideration now.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff